Estimated TARP losses reduced to $50-66b; could break even

[code1211]

And as soon as team Obama took the WH they changed the rules of the game pissing off the banks who felt like they had been sucker punched. They proceeded to repay tarp loans as fast as possible to eliminate the authority that being on the hook for those loans gave team Obama over their salaries and business practices.

Ask any banker; under Bush TARP was a bailout, under Obama it became a Trojan Horse.

Obama was pretty smart to light a fire under the feet of those TARP recipients. It's amazing how fast they want to pay the taxpayer back since Obama converted non-voting preferred shares to voting stock. Yet, it had the right wings' panties in a collective wad, with shouts of Obama's secret socialist plan to take over industry.

I also think there was enough "moral hazard" fear in the bailout, between Bear Sterns failing, and Lehman Brothers being gobbled up for chump change.

Good point. So maybe a way to reduce the moral hazard of bailouts is to attach a bunch of inconvenient strings to the package, making a bailout so unattractive to the recipient that bankruptcy would seem the better option.

Exactly.

 

[code1211]

that is a different stimulus than The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — President Obama's $787 billion stimulus
Recovery Act: How Obama's Stimulus Is Changing America - TIME

altho it was a stimulus and he did sign it 6 months before the election. It was only $168 billion.

The $767 billion recovery act cost was for a 10 year period, no? a 10 year cost of the programs instituted, with it front loaded on the first couple of years?

I thihnk you might be confusing the Failed Stimulus with the Health Insurance Redirection of Money Into Washington Act.

The Failed Stimulus has already spent 70% of the total. The other 30% is intended to re-elect Democrats and it should require every penny.

The price tag for the health insurance Reform is calculated across ten years of increased taxes and 6 years of benefits being paid. This is part of the swindle. 10 years of income with 6 years of expense. Neat.

 

[rdean]

that is a different stimulus than The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — President Obama's $787 billion stimulus
Recovery Act: How Obama's Stimulus Is Changing America - TIME

altho it was a stimulus and he did sign it 6 months before the election. It was only $168 billion.

Neither was big enough.

Republicans, for some odd reason, believe "tax cuts" work. Bush passed a 2.4 trillion dollar tax cut, over 52% went to the top 1% of Americans, and what happened to the economy?

It seemed to work for a minute. Because those companies that received all that money, brought Chinese and Indians over here to learn American jobs from the very Americans they were replacing. Once they learned those jobs, they were moved to those countries where workers could be paid 100 dollars a month.
To add insult to injury, Republicans made sure those companies were given subsidies.

<snip>

.

Now that all of that horrible stuff has ended, how many of the new jobs have been brought back by the enlightened policies of the Big 0?

Please demonstrate this gain in view of the roughly 5 million jobs that have evaporated since the Big 0 started his enlightened policies.

I'm assuming you spent time actually doing research. Only you don't post any links.

Recovery.gov

Hey, you know what's really hilarious? It's Republican politicians taking credit for jobs created by Obama's stimulus package. Maybe you could check that out on your own? Give you some "practice"?

 

[rdean]

that is a different stimulus than The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — President Obama's $787 billion stimulus
Recovery Act: How Obama's Stimulus Is Changing America - TIME

altho it was a stimulus and he did sign it 6 months before the election. It was only $168 billion.

The $767 billion recovery act cost was for a 10 year period, no? a 10 year cost of the programs instituted, with it front loaded on the first couple of years?

I thihnk you might be confusing the Failed Stimulus with the Health Insurance Redirection of Money Into Washington Act.

The Failed Stimulus has already spent 70% of the total. The other 30% is intended to re-elect Democrats and it should require every penny.

The price tag for the health insurance Reform is calculated across ten years of increased taxes and 6 years of benefits being paid. This is part of the swindle. 10 years of income with 6 years of expense. Neat.

Stimulus money used for "elections"? You have a link, I'm sure. Otherwise, people will call you, well, you can't really say it in mixed company.

 

[Dick Tuck]

And as soon as team Obama took the WH they changed the rules of the game pissing off the banks who felt like they had been sucker punched. They proceeded to repay tarp loans as fast as possible to eliminate the authority that being on the hook for those loans gave team Obama over their salaries and business practices.

Ask any banker; under Bush TARP was a bailout, under Obama it became a Trojan Horse.

Obama was pretty smart to light a fire under the feet of those TARP recipients. It's amazing how fast they want to pay the taxpayer back since Obama converted non-voting preferred shares to voting stock. Yet, it had the right wings' panties in a collective wad, with shouts of Obama's secret socialist plan to take over industry.

I also think there was enough "moral hazard" fear in the bailout, between Bear Sterns failing, and Lehman Brothers being gobbled up for chump change.

Good point. So maybe a way to reduce the moral hazard of bailouts is to attach a bunch of inconvenient strings to the package, making a bailout so unattractive to the recipient that bankruptcy would seem the better option.

Exactly.

That's what gets me. The complaint from Democrats over TARP was not that it wasn't necessary, but that Bush didn't have enough controls in place to ensure that those being bailed out were using the money properly. When Obama took office, one of his first acts was to put those controls in place, and he was accused of some secret plot to lead us into socialism. Well, it certainly didn't make us a socialist country, since most of those companies are getting back on their feet, and Obama ought to be congratulated for preserving more of capitalism.

The other funny thing is the idea that doing nothing would have had a better long term effect. That's utter nonsense, and all one need do is look at the soup lines and migrant Okies of the Great Depression, which forced government to adopt more socialist policies to prevent armed insurrection. Yes, if we had 40% unemployment, which is what it was at its worst, we'll find there's social consequences that go along with that.

 

[code1211]

You made me go look it up. Why couldn't you?

=================================

Bush signs stimulus package into law

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Wednesday signed a multibillion-dollar economic rescue package on Wednesday that means $300 to $1,200 rebates for many American households.

Bush called the measure "a booster shot for our economy" to stave off a recession.

Bush signs stimulus package into law - Business - Stocks & economy - msnbc.com

I guess Bush was the only Republican who didn't want the country to fail. He only started his schemes because in his limited imagination, they worked. Funny, the last two did.

The Stimulus that you cite was signed in Febuary of 2008. The Failed Stimulus of the Big 0 was a year later. Are you intentionally trying to decieve, that is lying, or do you really not know the difference?

Bush's succeeded but Obama's failed?

I see how you could assume that from what I wrote. Both were failures. Bush sent out checks to everyone and the Big 0 sent out checks to union members, Democrat party sycophants and just about anyone that any Democrat wanted to pay off, pay back or bribe.

Due to the small "d' democratic nature of the Bush program which inclueded everyone, I would prefer his over the underhanded, back room dealing, corrupt and dishonest approach of the Big 0.

But, to your point, both were failures.

 

[Care4all]

that is a different stimulus than The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 &#8212; President Obama's $787 billion stimulus
Recovery Act: How Obama's Stimulus Is Changing America - TIME

altho it was a stimulus and he did sign it 6 months before the election. It was only $168 billion.

The $767 billion recovery act cost was for a 10 year period, no? a 10 year cost of the programs instituted, with it front loaded on the first couple of years?

I thihnk you might be confusing the Failed Stimulus with the Health Insurance Redirection of Money Into Washington Act.

The Failed Stimulus has already spent 70% of the total. The other 30% is intended to re-elect Democrats and it should require every penny.

The price tag for the health insurance Reform is calculated across ten years of increased taxes and 6 years of benefits being paid. This is part of the swindle. 10 years of income with 6 years of expense. Neat.

no, it was for 10 years, with it front loaded....here is a link code1211...

Jun 3 2010
The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. The plan was to jumpstart economic growth, and save between 900,000 - 2.3 million jobs. The economic stimulus bill allocated funds as follows:

* $288 billion in tax cuts.
* $224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care.
* $275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans.

For more detail, see Economic Stimulus Package in Detail.

Although the economic stimulus package was to be spent over ten years, the bulk was budgeted for the first three fiscal years: $185 billion in 2009, $400 billion in 2010 and $135 billion in 2011. By October 30,2009, over $241.9 billion was spent: $92.8 in tax relief, $86.5 in unemployment and other benefits and $62.6 in job creation grants.


The CBO projected these funds would increase GDP growth by 1.4% - 3.8% by the end of 2009. This does not mean GDP growth will be positive. The economy could remain in recession, defined as negative GDP growth. In fact, the CBO forecast the economy would be down 3% for 2009.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/a/Obama_Stimulus.htm

 

[code1211]

The $767 billion recovery act cost was for a 10 year period, no? a 10 year cost of the programs instituted, with it front loaded on the first couple of years?

I thihnk you might be confusing the Failed Stimulus with the Health Insurance Redirection of Money Into Washington Act.

The Failed Stimulus has already spent 70% of the total. The other 30% is intended to re-elect Democrats and it should require every penny.

The price tag for the health insurance Reform is calculated across ten years of increased taxes and 6 years of benefits being paid. This is part of the swindle. 10 years of income with 6 years of expense. Neat.

Stimulus money used for "elections"? You have a link, I'm sure. Otherwise, people will call you, well, you can't really say it in mixed company.

I would hope that it is intended to re-elect Democrats. It sure as Hell hasn't improved the economy. If it is not intended to re-elect Democrats by rewarding those who support them, what else could the purpose be?

 

[code1211]

The $767 billion recovery act cost was for a 10 year period, no? a 10 year cost of the programs instituted, with it front loaded on the first couple of years?

I thihnk you might be confusing the Failed Stimulus with the Health Insurance Redirection of Money Into Washington Act.

The Failed Stimulus has already spent 70% of the total. The other 30% is intended to re-elect Democrats and it should require every penny.

The price tag for the health insurance Reform is calculated across ten years of increased taxes and 6 years of benefits being paid. This is part of the swindle. 10 years of income with 6 years of expense. Neat.

no, it was for 10 years, with it front loaded....here is a link code1211...

Jun 3 2010
The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. The plan was to jumpstart economic growth, and save between 900,000 - 2.3 million jobs. The economic stimulus bill allocated funds as follows:

* $288 billion in tax cuts.
* $224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care.
* $275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans.

For more detail, see Economic Stimulus Package in Detail.

Although the economic stimulus package was to be spent over ten years, the bulk was budgeted for the first three fiscal years: $185 billion in 2009, $400 billion in 2010 and $135 billion in 2011. By October 30,2009, over $241.9 billion was spent: $92.8 in tax relief, $86.5 in unemployment and other benefits and $62.6 in job creation grants.


The CBO projected these funds would increase GDP growth by 1.4% - 3.8% by the end of 2009. This does not mean GDP growth will be positive. The economy could remain in recession, defined as negative GDP growth. In fact, the CBO forecast the economy would be down 3% for 2009.

Economic Stimulus Bill - Economic Stimulus Package - Obama Economic Stimulus Package

I stand corrected. The Big 0 created a 10 year program with funds set to be spent in 2019 to stimulate the economy in 2009. Brilliant!

 

[rdean]

The Stimulus that you cite was signed in Febuary of 2008. The Failed Stimulus of the Big 0 was a year later. Are you intentionally trying to decieve, that is lying, or do you really not know the difference?

Bush's succeeded but Obama's failed?

I see how you could assume that from what I wrote. Both were failures. Bush sent out checks to everyone and the Big 0 sent out checks to union members, Democrat party sycophants and just about anyone that any Democrat wanted to pay off, pay back or bribe.

Due to the small "d' democratic nature of the Bush program which inclueded everyone, I would prefer his over the underhanded, back room dealing, corrupt and dishonest approach of the Big 0.

But, to your point, both were failures.

Wow, you're so good with that word "failure". Only you never make any suggestions nor post any links. One might get the impression you are an empty shill.

 

[code1211]

Bush's succeeded but Obama's failed?

I see how you could assume that from what I wrote. Both were failures. Bush sent out checks to everyone and the Big 0 sent out checks to union members, Democrat party sycophants and just about anyone that any Democrat wanted to pay off, pay back or bribe.

Due to the small "d' democratic nature of the Bush program which inclueded everyone, I would prefer his over the underhanded, back room dealing, corrupt and dishonest approach of the Big 0.

But, to your point, both were failures.

Wow, you're so good with that word "failure". Only you never make any suggestions nor post any links. One might get the impression you are an empty shill.

Failure. If there is a program with a stated goal and that goal is not achieved, what word would you use to describe the result of the program that failed to achieve the stated goal?

Make suggestions? I've made plenty. On which topic would you like me to make a suggestion?

What links would you like? I generally post my opinions. Links to my opinions are contained within the posts that I post. Usually my train of thought is displayed and open to review or rebuttal. Care did so above.

Of course, when she did so, she exposed that I did not understand in completeness the fullness of the swindle to which we are being subjected under the Failed Stimulus. Authorizing expenditures to occur in 2019 to stimulate the economy in 2009? Wow!

 

[william the wie]

A better corporate bankruptcy code is desperately needed.

 

[loosecannon]

For a while. But in the long run the economy may have been far better off if things were allowed to proceed and demand correction.

Yeah maybe

It's all a maybe. We don't know what calamity the TARP legislation saved us from, nor do we know that it worked.

That nothing has changed and the experience was resolved in a way that suggests it will be repeated is the worst possible outcome imo.

It is 100% moral hazard, based on an assumed benefit not in evidence.

 

[william the wie]

Letting it all hang loose would have cost $0.4/$ for the creditors of AIG and much smaller bonuses for the surviving investment banks. Or at least that is the estimate I see most often. However the foreclosure crisis going on now will give a real world test in as much as the state and federal courts could care less about Bernancke's mandate when he starts screwing with American real estate law.

 

[loosecannon]

Banks seem to have "issues" every twenty years or so. No matter what. I don't think bailouts or any set regulations will fundamentally break that cycle.

I'm barely literate when it comes to economics. So if economists from different schools are all saying the same thing, I'll take their word. Sheeple mentality at its finest.



But wasn't that the point of TARP? Keep the industry afloat, keeping the same banks at the top; minimize the changes that a true purging of the market would have made.

argue for the status quo and it is yours!

I'm not really arguing for the status quo but maybe it's coming across that way. No fan of GS here. I'm arguing that TARP was successful in its objective--for good or bad in the long run--because the financial sector is relatively intact today, at little to possibly no cost to the taxpayer.

The program would definitely have been a failure if the sector was still collapsing right now. But since it isn't, then there's a reasonable argument that TARP was a major factor in preventing that further collapse. It's ultimately based on speculation, like the counter-argument. So I guess it comes down to ideological head-butting.

OK. But saving the banks, who tend to get themselves in shitstorms every 20 years or so (because they FU), is worthless unless it contributes to the overall economy.

Like why even bother to care about the banks if they don't, won't, lend, Responsibly?

THEY Placed the rest of the economy at risk and so far the rest of the economy got no bailout and is still down and out. And it really isn't over yet, by a longshot. There is still lots more munure to work thru the system (fan) before the credit crisis is normalized.

 

[loosecannon]

Obama was pretty smart to light a fire under the feet of those TARP recipients. It's amazing how fast they want to pay the taxpayer back since Obama converted non-voting preferred shares to voting stock. Yet, it had the right wings' panties in a collective wad, with shouts of Obama's secret socialist plan to take over industry.

What Obama did was legally wrong, and amounted to breach of contract. It reinforced an idea central to the US globally. It said to the world that America's word is not bound by law and is only as good as it's current leadership.

BUT it actually did force TARP to be wound down quickly with few losses YET to the taxpayer.

But we still don't know when AIG is gonna be solvent or how many more bailouts they may need.

Some firms ended up subsidizing the loses of others.

In the normal functioning of the market, businesses grow and businesses shrink. If the busijness in questin goes out of business, its customers continue to buy and, usually, another company buys the defuct entity.

Subsidizing the losses of failed companies is what successful companies do in this process.

I think you misunderstood me, or perhaps I didn't illustrate my point.

TARP looks likely to be net neutral. But of the firms who participated some cost the tax payers moolah while others produced a profit for the tax payer.

That means that some firms lost money via TARP to subsidize other firms that profited from TARP. Like AIG and the auto companies.

 

[loosecannon]

That's what gets me. The complaint from Democrats over TARP was not that it wasn't necessary, but that Bush didn't have enough controls in place to ensure that those being bailed out were using the money properly. When Obama took office, one of his first acts was to put those controls in place

And team Obama deserve credit for that.

The other funny thing is the idea that doing nothing would have had a better long term effect. That's utter nonsense, and all one need do is look at the soup lines and migrant Okies of the Great Depression, which forced government to adopt more socialist policies to prevent armed insurrection. Yes, if we had 40% unemployment, which is what it was at its worst, we'll find there's social consequences that go along with that.

That is pure unadulterated conjecture, esp since despite the TARP and the stimuluses we may still see a redux of the GD.

But we have no solid reason to believe that allowing the big banks to work out their grossly negligent derivatives exposures would have created a more ominous result for the real goods, services and employment economy.

And the CREDIT CRISIS, the thing TARP was really supposed to resolve, is STILL ONGOING! Tarp was a 100% failure in meeting it's core objective.

 

[loosecannon]

A better corporate bankruptcy code is desperately needed.

? We had a corporate bankruptcy code pre Obama. Now we don't.

 

[loosecannon]

Letting it all hang loose would have cost $0.4/$ for the creditors of AIG and much smaller bonuses for the surviving investment banks. Or at least that is the estimate I see most often.

I could live with that easy, even ten fold. How many Americans lost their jobs, lost their homes, became homeless or even DIED because of this credit crisis/recession?

However the foreclosure crisis going on now will give a real world test in as much as the state and federal courts could care less about Bernancke's mandate when he starts screwing with American real estate law.

WE will see. The real shit hasn't hit the fan yet. This may yet be just a fart.

 

[rdean]

I see how you could assume that from what I wrote. Both were failures. Bush sent out checks to everyone and the Big 0 sent out checks to union members, Democrat party sycophants and just about anyone that any Democrat wanted to pay off, pay back or bribe.

Due to the small "d' democratic nature of the Bush program which inclueded everyone, I would prefer his over the underhanded, back room dealing, corrupt and dishonest approach of the Big 0.

But, to your point, both were failures.

Wow, you're so good with that word "failure". Only you never make any suggestions nor post any links. One might get the impression you are an empty shill.

Failure. If there is a program with a stated goal and that goal is not achieved, what word would you use to describe the result of the program that failed to achieve the stated goal?

Make suggestions? I've made plenty. On which topic would you like me to make a suggestion?

What links would you like? I generally post my opinions. Links to my opinions are contained within the posts that I post. Usually my train of thought is displayed and open to review or rebuttal. Care did so above.

Of course, when she did so, she exposed that I did not understand in completeness the fullness of the swindle to which we are being subjected under the Failed Stimulus. Authorizing expenditures to occur in 2019 to stimulate the economy in 2009? Wow!

Start by describing a workable solution the Republicans would actually pass.